Randell v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This matter listed before the court today is an application for an order that the respondent show cause why a remedy should not be granted in exercise of the court's jurisdiction under s 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) in respect of the decision of the respondent Minister to cancel the visa of the applicant, Mr Randell. The decision of the Minister was made on 4 July 2011. 2 I note that there is no appearance by the applicant in court today. I understand that the applicant has also not complied with the court's direction that he file and serve an outline of submissions and a list of authorities within seven clear working days before the hearing. 3 On 30 January 2012 at 12.54 pm Mr David Noda, the applicant's stepfather, called my chambers and informed my associate that Mr Randell had "run away" and was now in breach of his parole conditions. It appears that Mr Randell had become frightened. I understand that Mr Randell is only 21 years old. Mr Noda, Mr Randell's stepfather understood that the Minister would still be attending the hearing and that the matter would proceed today. 4 The information given to my chambers is consistent with the affidavit of Mr Rowan White sworn 1 February 2012 and filed in court today. 5 The applicant was at one stage represented by Stephens & Tozers Solicitors. A notice of ceasing to act was however filed by Stephens & Tozers Solicitors on 10 January 2012. The notice contained the last known address of Mr Randell. Upon his release from Woodford Correctional Centre the applicant resided with his mother and his stepfather at Ashmore in Queensland. 6 No telephone number has been provided for the Court's records. As I have already noted, my chambers has been contacted on numerous occasions by Mr Randell's mother and stepfather. 7 Pursuant to Federal Court Rule 30.21 the Court can dismiss an application if the applicant does not appear in Court for the hearing of the proceeding. This is clearly such a case. 8 In Pham v University of Queensland (2002) FCA 203, Drummond J, with Marshall and Finkelstein JJ concurring, made the following observations concerning O 32 r 2(1)(c) of the previous Federal Court rules: [26] But O 32 r 2(1)(c) does not require the trial judge, confronted with a non-appearance of an applicant, to embark upon any investigation of the merits of the absent applicant's claim. The procedure for dismissing an action under that particular rule is available only when the trial is called on, ie, only at the point in time when all of the preliminary steps, including finalisation of pleadings and marshalling of evidence, have been completed. 9 This is clearly the case here. 10 I note the applicant can apply to have the decision ordering dismissal of this application set aside. In view of the non-appearance of the applicant it is clearly appropriate to make an order that the matter be dismissed with costs. I certify that the preceding ten (10) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Collier.